| From: | Dennis Bjorklund <db(at)zigo(dot)dhs(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
| Cc: | Thomas Swan <tswan(at)idigx(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Nested Transactions, Abort All |
| Date: | 2004-07-06 06:15:14 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0407060811210.21809-100000@zigo.dhs.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > begin/end because they are already in an explicit/implicit transaction
> > by default... How is the user/programmer to know when this is the case?
>
> I'm not sure I understand you. Of course you can issue begin/end. What
> you can't do is issue begin/end inside a function -- you always use
> subbegin/subcommit in that case.
I've not understood why we need new tokens for this case. Maybe you've
explained it somewhere that I've missed. But surely the server know if you
are in a transaction or not, and can differentiate on the first BEGIN and
the next BEGIN.
--
/Dennis Björklund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2004-07-06 07:05:06 | Re: Recovery Features |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-07-06 05:27:31 | Re: Bug with view definitions? |